pve_list_node_storage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states a listing action without details on permissions, rate limits, or output format. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety or describe potential side effects, leaving significant gaps in transparency for a tool with multiple parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two words, 'List node storage', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and lack of redundant information, making it efficient in structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return values, usage context, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameter knowledge from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all parameters clearly (e.g., node name, content filter, storage ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List node storage' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what 'node storage' entails (e.g., storage volumes, configurations) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content', leaving the purpose vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'pve_list_storage' (which might list all storage) or 'pve_list_node_storage_content' (which might list content within storage). This absence makes it misleading for an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.